Posted on 05/12/2012 9:34:24 AM PDT by neverdem
A new study finds that fetal exposure to the plastic additive bisphenol A, or BPA, alters mammary gland development in primates. The finding adds to the evidence that the chemical can be causing health problems in humans and bolsters concerns about it contributing to breast cancer.
"Previous studies in mice have demonstrated that low doses of BPA alter the developing mammary gland and that these subtle changes increase the risk of cancer in the adult," says Patricia Hunt, a geneticist in Washington State University's School of Molecular Biosciences. "Some have questioned the relevance of these findings in mice to humans. But finding the same thing in a primate model really hits uncomfortably close to home."
The research appears in the latest Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Hunt and Tufts University School of Medicine researchers Ana Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein -- all pioneers in the effects of BPA -- co-designed the study with Catherine VandeVoort at the University of California at Davis, where the study was performed.
The Tufts researchers compared the structure of newborn mammary glands from BPA-exposed and unexposed female rhesus macaques. Pregnant monkeys were fed a piece of fruit containing a small amount of BPA each day during the gestational period corresponding to the human third trimester of pregnancy, resulting in blood levels of BPA comparable to those of many Americans today.
The researchers found that, at birth, the density of mammary buds was significantly increased in BPA-exposed monkeys, and the overall development of the mammary gland was more advanced compared to unexposed monkeys. Previous studies in the Soto and Sonnenschein laboratories have shown that exposing rodents to tiny amounts of BPA can alter mammary gland development, leading to pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions when the animals exposed in utero reach adult age...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
"I look at monkey tits".
Somehow, I just don't want to invite that guy to my next BBQ.
/johnny
Ping.
Without knowing what foods have this additive, it's difficult to know what foods we are supposed to avoid.
More specifically, involutarily self medicating our endocrine systems with synthetic estrogen needs to stop.
Why would anyone want to feed it to themselves and to their kids?
What are the short and long term effects?
Could BPA have anything to do with the increase what some call the "girly men" and "manly women" among us?
Even the coating on some brands of canning jar lids contain BPA.
In soft plastic containers and liners of canned food.
Bisphenyl A is a chemical used to make polycarbonate and can linings. The residual amount is miniscule in food in the case of cans, and polycarbonate is seldom used for food packaging although it is used for those 5 gallon water bottles that go in the water coolers. Since those sre used and emptied, the leaching of anything from them to the water is very minimal.
I once made a BPA/methacrylate which was and I believe is still used for dental bonding. Now that might give you a larger dose.
But I came in daily contact with tons of BPA. Don’t have any effects 50 years later.
I think this is another Luddite attack on chemicals in general and plastic products in particular. Problem is analytical techniques have progressed to the point that they can find bad things in anything. If you checked all the bad stuff in red wine you wouldn’t drimk it.
B I N G O ! ! !
I want to see the study about abortions and Birth control pills increasing breast cancer cases.
Interesting. So...you're absolutely guaranteeing that it is harmless to everyone because you don't seem to have any effects?
I know some who cannot drink red wine because of the headaches they get from it. I know some who have smoked all their lives and died in their 80s or 90s from natural causes. I know some beekeepers who can get stung over and over again with little or no problems and a couple of people who will go into shock from a single fire ant sting.
You might be right and clearly your experience is helpful and valuable, but perhaps common sense, the Bell curve and the scientific method might be more helpful for health risk determination than the anecdotal alone.
We know a lot, but we're still learning what to do and what not to do and how to err on the side of caution. Just gotta roll with it and make changes when needed, which seems to be the case with BPA.
Without the internals of this study, we still have no relevant information, just another it could happen to you scare.
NY State's Department of Health strongly implies about the former here:
CORAM, MT. SINAI, PORT JEFFERSON STATION (CMP) FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION(PDF)
BREAST CANCER RISK FACTORS with references starts on page 25.
“The importance of reproductive factors in affecting breast cancer risk has been known for a long time. Women who have never given birth (or had a full-term pregnancy) are at a higher risk for breast cancer compared to women who have carried a pregnancy to term.”(Page 26)As for the latter:
Oral Contraceptives and Cancer Risk
A number of studies suggest that current use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) appears to slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among younger women. However, the risk level goes back to normal 10 years or more after discontinuing oral contraceptive use.
One of the good things about press releases via ScienceDaily is that they usually have the title of the citation and link the abstract, also known as a summary, as they did here. I've been doing this long enough that when I find an interesting presser like this, I enclose some unique text within quotation marks, and then do a search. Voila! ScienceDaily had it too. Abstracts have their limitations, but if I don't want to read a science article for 2 - 3 hours, an abstract can be sufficient, IMHO.
Bisphenol A alters the development of the rhesus monkey mammary gland
The xenoestrogen bisphenol A (BPA) used in the manufacturing of various plastics and resins for food packaging and consumer products has been shown to produce numerous endocrine and developmental effects in rodents. Exposure to low doses of BPA during fetal mammary gland development resulted in significant alterations in the gland’s morphology that varied from subtle ones observed during the exposure period to precancerous and cancerous lesions manifested in adulthood. This study assessed the effects of BPA on fetal mammary gland development in nonhuman primates. Pregnant rhesus monkeys were fed 400 μg of BPA per kg of body weight daily from gestational day 100 to term, which resulted in 0.68 ± 0.312 ng of unconjugated BPA per mL of maternal serum, a level comparable to that found in humans. At birth, the mammary glands of female offspring were removed for morphological analysis. Morphological parameters similar to those shown to be affected in rodents exposed prenatally to BPA were measured in whole-mounted glands; estrogen receptor (ER) α and β expression were assessed in paraffin sections. Student's t tests for equality of means were used to assess differences between exposed and unexposed groups. The density of mammary buds was significantly increased in BPA-exposed monkeys, and the overall development of their mammary gland was more advanced compared with unexposed monkeys. No significant differences were observed in ER expression. Altogether, gestational exposure to the estrogen-mimic BPA altered the developing mammary glands of female nonhuman primates in a comparable manner to that observed in rodents.I'm not a Luddite. I was a chemistry major before I became a physician. If this stuff mimics estrogen, then we're begging for trouble.
Right. Synthetic estrogens are something that potentially can adversely affect all stages of human development and later life, but especially fetal, preadolescence and adolescent growth and development.
With a nod to anecdotal evidence, has anyone noticed any difference in kids today vs kids from years ago before the prevalence of this chemical?
Red wine might have many healthful benefits, but pregnant women are advised to avoid alcohol and you'll go to jail if you're filling your toddler's bottle with it.
Besides, there are many viable alternatives currently in use. Why use something potentially harmful if you don't need to? We can do better for ourselves and our children.
Err on the side of caution. Just my opinion.
The point was that NO ONE will be brave enough to link any correlation between breast cancer and those factors in the MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.